WRIGHT
v.
STATE

Fla. 3d DCA | 2018-02-07
No. 16-2478
239 So. 3d 156 Florida District Court of Appeal, Third District (2018)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.

Holding

A pro se litigant who has filed at least thirteen unsuccessful appeals raising previously-decided claims and whose current filing contains profane language and threats rather than articulated legal arguments may be prohibited from further pro se filings unless represented by counsel.

Headnotes

[1] A court may order a pro se litigant to show cause why they should not be prohibited from making further filings related to a specific case if the litigant has abused the…

[2] A litigant's repeated, unsuccessful appeals on previously decided issues may constitute an abuse of the judicial process.

Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence
Key Quotes

“further action is warranted by this Court, as Wright's abuse of the judicial process is apparent on the face of the motion.”

Court's explanation for taking action beyond routine denial of the motion for rehearing.
Facts & Procedural History

Walter Lee Wright, convicted in 2006 of first-degree murder with a firearm, armed robbery with a firearm, armed burglary, and attempted carjacking wit…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.

Topics
Sanctions For Vexatious Litigation Frivolous Filings Vexatious Litigation Abuse Of Judicial Process

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sanctions For Vexatious Litigation cases and more on FLexlaw

Opinion of the Court

Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed February 7, 2018. Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D16-2478 Lower Tribunal No. 01-7689

________________

Walter Lee Wright,

Appellant,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Appellee.

An Appeal under Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Cristina Miranda, Judge. Walter Lee Wright, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for appellee. Before SALTER, FERNANDEZ and LOGUE, JJ.

FERNANDEZ, J.

Walter Lee Wright files a Motion for Rehearing with respect to the underlying appeal. For the reasons that follow, we deny the motion and order Wright to show cause why this Court should not prohibit him from making further pro se filings related to circuit court case number F01-7689. Ordinarily, we would deny this motion without further discussion. However, further action is warranted by this Court, as Wright’s abuse of the judicial process is apparent on the face of the motion.1 Initially, Wright appealed the trial court’s summary denial of his motion for post-conviction relief. Following review of this successive appeal, this Court per curiam affirmed on December 21, 2016.

Wright then filed a motion for rehearing with this Court on January 11, 2017. The rehearing was denied on January 20, 2017. On February 28, 2017, Wright filed a motion to clarify and recall this Court’s mandate. The motion was denied on March 6, 2017.

Turning to Wright’s current filing before this Court, the second “Motion for Rehearing,” of this Court’s affirmance of the trial court’s order, we note there is no request for relief in the Motion for Rehearing. Instead, Wright engages in profane name calling and threatening language.

Including the underlying appeal, Wright has filed at least thirteen unsuccessful appeals with this Court, stemming from his 2006 convictions and

Footnotes
1 Wright’s motion includes the following paragraph: “MOTHAF--K y’all and all those that’s down with y’all corrupted behavior! You MOTHAF--KS are not GOD and you damn sure not right. From this day forward all HELL will come down on y’all until I’m FREE.” Wright signs his motion “Lucifer” “Son of David.” sentences for first-degree murder with a firearm, armed robbery with a firearm, armed burglary, and attempted carjacking with a firearm. When Wright has articulated a claim, these claims have all previously been raised on direct and collateral appeal and have been decided on the merits against Wright.2 Wright is hereby directed to show cause, within sixty days from the date of this order, why he should not be prohibited from filing any further pro se appeals, pleadings, motions, or petitions relating to his convictions, judgments, and sentences in circuit court case number F01-7689, unless such pleadings are signed by a member of the Florida Bar. See State v. Spencer, 751 So. 2d 47 (Fla. 1999); Walker v. State, 814 So. 2d 516 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Motion denied. Order to show cause issued.
2 Wright v. State, 2016 WL 7404552 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Wright v. State, 212 So. 3d 370 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Wright v. State, 208 So. 3d 1181 (Fla. 3d DCA 2016); Wright v. State, 207 So. 3d 887 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015); Wright v. State, 151 So. 3d 1260 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014); Wright v. State, No. 3D13-2081 (Fla. 3d DCA August 27, 2013; Wright v. State, 119 So. 3d 454 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Wright v. State, 111 So. 3d 894 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013); Wright v. State, 76 So. 3d 308 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Wright v. State, 57 So. 3d 862 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Wright v. State, 56 So. 3d 13 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011); Wright v. State, 49 So. 3d 1279 (Fla. 3d DCA 2010); Wright v. State, 994 So. 2d 447 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw